• 80 percent support laws to prevent mentally ill people from purchasing guns, with broad support across party lines

• 67 percent favor creating a federal database to track gun sales

• 55 percent favor a ban on assault-style weapons

• 54 percent support banning high-capacity ammunition clips

Sources: Pew Research Center and ABC/Washington Post

» Social News

The commonsense approach offered by the White House to curb gun violence probably won't fly, not all of it anyway.

There are those with legitimate concerns about 2nd Amendment rights, even among those supporting strong regulations. And a significant number of Americans do.

But just because there is public support for something doesn't mean it passes constitutional muster. There was widespread support for the Supreme Court's Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson decisions in the 1800s, but neither could be considered constitutional today. So it's important that we're mindful of the 2nd Amendment. Reasonable people can come up with reasonable even if not perfect solutions.

More troubling, however, are the relatively few but highly active "from my cold dead hands" types for which any attempt to control the number, type or access to firearms of any type is a conspiratorial assault on a right they hold more dear than any other. The noise they generate and the political fear they seem capable of generating is utterly out of proportion to their numbers.

Obama has signed 23 executive orders - bypassing a potential congressional blockade - aimed at augmenting mental health measures, increasing federal research on gun crimes through the Centers for Disease Control and, to many most importantly, strengthening existing weapons laws.

Stricter prosecution includes going after would-be gun buyers who fail background checks as well as new rules for federal law enforcement to trace firearms recovered in criminal investigations.

Obama has directed officials to "clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes" and to "release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities."

The federal move echoes similar actions on the state level. New York last week became the first state to enact new firearms restrictions since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in December. Ten other states, including California, are considering tighter regulations; eight are considering measures on school safety; and seven are considering mental health measures.

Opponents to gun regulations, much like the vast majority of Americans, support harsh penalties for those who commit crimes with firearms. That's certainly our position.

But we do not believe more guns means less violence. There is ample anecdotal evidence as well as any number of scientific studies showing, for example, that having a handgun in the home increases the likelihood of an accident, suicide or domestic violence.

Neither do we believe more firearms regulations are an end-all solution. Such rules are only part of what must be a comprehensive approach involving penalties, education, greater access to affordable mental health services and somehow, and more difficult by far than overcoming the constitutional concerns of some, a change in how we view firearms.

When a trigger is pulled the real consequences are far different in real life than they are in a video game or movie. Settling disputes through violence only spurs more violence.

The December horror of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre is viewed by many as the tipping point that will finally allow this nation to address gun violence. We can hope because the reality is gun violence is a horror visited on this nation every day.